California's Exxon Mobil lawsuit is guided more by symbols than actions – does Watt support this?

Nate Scherer

The idea of ​​corporate social responsibility is not new. For years, there has been a push for companies to act in more socially responsible ways, particularly when it comes to environmental management. While environmental stewardship is important, concerns about sustainability must be carefully balanced with consumer interests. The nation's most populous state appears to be increasingly forgetting these important facts.

California is suing oil and gas giant Exxon Mobil, accusing it of “releasing deceptive public information on plastic recycling” and its role in the “plastic waste and pollution crisis.” Unfortunately, the lawsuit is profoundly misleading and ignores the complex role plastics continue to play in society. It seeks to blame one company for global problems while absolve itself of any responsibility.

While many states already have laws requiring manufacturers to recycle or otherwise safely dispose of discarded products, California's lawsuit goes further. It seeks to hold a company accountable for something for which it is only indirectly responsible as a large oil and gas producer. This makes it uniquely dangerous and potentially harmful to consumers, as plastic has many uses and is still widely used.

It goes without saying that plastic waste is a serious problem that in many ways embodies the economic concept known as the “tragedy of the commons,” in which individual actions collectively can lead to negative consequences. Millions of tons of plastic are produced in the United States every year, much of which ends up in landfills or, in the worst cases, is discarded into the environment. California notes that only a small percentage of this plastic is recycled, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates the figure is about 9%.

However, California has chosen to praise ExxonMobil for promoting advanced recycling technology and using a widely recognized recycling logo on its products. The state contends these actions mislead consumers into believing that if they dispose of the products correctly, they will be recycled, even though most current research shows otherwise. But publicizing technological advances in recycling (even modest ones) and encouraging people to recycle is a good thing, not a bad thing.

The federal government has encouraged recycling for decades, spending millions of dollars each year on educational events such as America Recycles Day. California, for its part, also continues to promote recycling and regularly passes new rules and regulations to make recycling easier for consumers. Whether these efforts are effective is a separate question, but ExxonMobil isn't the only company embracing recycling as a solution for plastic waste.

This makes California’s lawsuit against ExxonMobil disingenuous. The government seems more interested in tracking the company because it is the world’s largest “refiner and marketer” of petrochemicals than in solving the world’s plastic pollution problem. Perhaps that's why Golden State is seeking “billions of dollars” in civil penalties.

The lawsuit also appears to ignore the huge benefits plastics bring to the general public, including Californians. Despite ongoing recycling challenges, plastics remain attractive because they are extremely versatile, cheap to make, and have many unique properties that make them better than alternative materials that are not always as practical or even better for the environment. more popular.

In fact, there's a reason why plastic is called “the material with 1,000 uses.” Today, more than 6,000 consumer products rely on petrochemicals as their primary chemical compounds. They are found in common items ranging from milk cartons and shampoo bottles to life-saving medical equipment and car seat belts. One might think that a country that claims to be worried about “plastic everywhere” would at least try to understand why this is the case and what makes the material so popular.

Unfortunately, this requires California to carefully weigh the pros and cons of plastic, but it has shown little interest in doing so as it attempts to transition away from oil and gas. California would do well to remember that solving global problems like plastic waste requires global efforts, and those efforts are undermined every time it chooses to single out a company already committed to playing its part.

Nate Scherer is a policy analyst at the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the institute, please visit our website www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org Or follow us on X @ConsumerPal

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and provided via RealClearWire.

Relevant